Transport Tribunal in London
Page 41
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
—IN Tuesday the Tribunal partially -I allowed an appeal by H. B. Ashby ad Sons, Brookland. Kent, against a ecision of the South eastern deputy ,uthority, refusing to allow five Bcensed vehicles to carry goods as subJ nitractors for three named hauliers any distance." The vehicles were now :stricted to "Livestock anywhere, other oods within 30 .miles."
For the appellant, Mr. J. R. C. Samuellibbon said the Authority had overRed a submission by the "objectors (the .T.C.) that no prima facie case had been 3tablished and yet, despite the fact that te B.T.C. then called no evidence, :fused the application.
Criticising the Authority's reasons for is decision, Mr. Samuel-Gibbon said tat he had put the onus required in these ises "back to front." No additional !hide would he put on the road if the pplication was granted. When an bjector did not call evidence the appliition was virtually unopposed.
Mr. J. M. Timmons, for the B.T.C., ibmitted that the Authority had not the iformation before him upon which to Lake a grant.
Giving the Tribunal's judgment Sir ubert Hull, president, said that the uthority had obviously wavered in his lind; which wa; a good thing in any idiaial body. However, taking account the evidence. they proposed to allow the appeal but with a modification of the conditions, authorizing the carriage of livestock any distance and goods as subcontractors for John Jempson and Son within Kent and Sussex. and other goods within 30 miles.
WedneHday the Tribunal dismissed what they called a "troublesome appeal " by Lathams Transporters, Ltd.. of Preston; against. the refusal of the North Western Deputy Licensing Authority to grant them three A licence car transporters to .carry mainly Bond Minicars. boats, etc., for Sharps Commercials, Ltd., of Preston. The Deputy Authority in his decision had indicated that one vehicle on B licence would meet the applicants' needs.
Giving the Tribunal's judgment, Sir Hubert Hull said it was plain that the production of the smaller type of car was increasing. At the time of the inquiry, last November, one vehicle would have been the right number to grant but two vehicles were appropriate now.
As the appellants had a B licence which was due to be renewed shortly the addition of the two vehicles would more appropriately be dealt with as a variation of the B licence. The Authority would then have the , opportunity of looking into the operation of the fleet as a whole.